Organizations are Like Hair

When I was young and wild, I had beautiful hair.  To be honest, I’ve never cared for hair since I was in the 9th grade I’ve been cutting it as short as possible, and I’ve been doing it long enough now that I have no idea what color my hair is anymore. So, although I do not fit the bill, the metaphor I’m about to make, still works.  That metaphor is that organizations are like hair.

I know people that cut their hair every two weeks.  They never change the style, they never experiment.  They know what works and they are the guys that say things like, “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it”, “you don’t mess with the classics.”  They keep tight control over their hair and never let it get out of sorts.  This example shows what most leaders and managers want in their organizations.  They fight to stay standardized and look to control as much of their processes as possible.  There are many organizations that this works for, but this kind of leadership does not leave room for innovation and progress.  You can’t adjust processes and functions when you are doing the same things.

Additionally, you can’t change your hairstyle in any meaningful way without going through that weird medium length sloppy-hair stage.  You know, the stage where some will only lay flat and others will only stick straight up.  This is the stage where you test your commitment to the new style.  How much do you want it? If you are weak, or if you aren’t sure of what you want, you will quit and go back to what you know.  This stage in the organization is where most leaders lose their nerve and think the new efforts have failed.  On many occasions, this early exit is a tragic mistake which causes future efforts to die before they even happen.  Leaders must accept there is going to be growing pains with progress.

Eventually, you will have to cut your hair.  That doesn’t mean you have to go back to your old style, but you do need to get it back under control and set things right again.  Organizationally, this means you have to pull the crazy experimenting back a bit and look at providing more stable processes.  There will always be a need to experiment and take some risk, but after letting your people get wild and outside of the box, you will need to bring all that back in and get the balance back to the organization.  Too much wild-wild-west type of stuff in the organization can be exhausting so you will want to keep some of the momentum going for progress, without so much risk and experimenting.

So, let your hair grow and give your people some room to try new stuff!

 

Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, and Facebook!

Advertisements

Do Tradition and Heritage Hold You Back?

Standardization ruins organizations.  Once we get to the point that we are trying to make everyone do the same thing, without thought, we are doomed.  Most organizations and the people within them get into a rhythm.  They have the same annual events, traditions, and these events are rarely discussed with any serious intent.  The members of the organization are expected to uphold these traditions, and the leaders often expect everyone to participate.  But do these traditions do anything positive for the organization?

It depends.  Most of our traditions are no longer providing value to our processes but are more about culture.  But even traditions that contribute to culture can be problematic.  The military’s Change of Command Ceremony is one such example.  When the ceremony was created, it was done so out of necessity.  Most personnel in a military unit did not know who the commander of the unit was, and it caused much confusion on the battlefield.  This ceremony was designed to show everyone who the new commander was to alleviate that problem, and it worked.  Fast-forward to today, and we continue the tradition, but there is rarely an occasion where members will not know who the unit’s commander is, but we still spend weeks preparing for these ceremonies every two years.  The commander’s and their families enjoy them, and it is a great honor for them to earn a command, but almost everyone else is there because they are required.  The officer/enlisted structure is also antiquated and has lost its usefulness.  On the positive side, the military’s uniforms, many of the customs to include saluting, standing for senior members, reveille, retreat, taps, and countless others add to the discipline and positive culture of the units.

And what about the senior members of the organization?  Could they be holding back innovation?  Much like standardization, continuity is a term we must be careful with.  There is a point that continuity stops helping and starts holding the unit back from progress.  Something that was tried in the nineties may very well work now.  Not because we are better, but because technology may have made things easier than they were in the past.  We need to ensure our senior members value change and progress over standardization and continuity.

We must be cautious of sacrificing any future progress for short-term gains.  It might be tempting, but the short-term gains that too much standardization and continuity provide are addictive and will become the culture your organization begins to form around.  Soon enough, your organization will become irrelevant because short-term gains cannot compete with long-term progress.  Of course, this is not easy, and nobody has the perfect answer, but we must be brave enough to have the conversation.  It may feel bad to say the DoD no longer needs a separate officer and enlisted core, especially from the officer’s perspective, but it’s a conversation we must have, or we risk becoming too caught up in tradition.

 

Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, and Facebook!

Compliance or Commitment

Quality Assurance is everywhere, and it is undoubtedly useful.  The rules that govern our processes are also there for a reason, and we should follow them.  It has most likely taken many years of trial and error to figure out what works and what doesn’t.  But in many organizations, there is a focused effort on compliance and little discussion about commitment.

Most managers or leaders would agree that commitment is better than compliance, but rarely do we talk about commitment.  I have heard the phrase, “culture of compliance” so much that it is clear to me these leaders do not think about commitment and perhaps do not even realize that compliance does not make things great.  It merely makes them acceptable.  When people agree to take a job that does not equal commitment.  Enlisting in the military does not equal commitment.  I suppose it is a form of commitment, but not the commitment I’m referencing.  Organizational commitment is when members of the organization not only comply but look for ways to push the organization forward.

We want members of our organizations to want the organization to succeed.  We need them to invest their time and effort to see that it does succeed.  We have all seen these employees before.  The question is how do we get people to be committed instead of merely compliant?

The first solution is to start asking for commitment instead of compliance.  When we focus on compliance, that is what we get.  We cannot expect commitment when we only ask for compliance.

Someone very close to me recently went through an issue that highlights this problem.  She worked in a small organization as the number two in charge.  The organization was a mess, and there were problems everywhere.  But she was committed to the cause and worked tirelessly.  She put in at least 60 hours a week and received phone calls constantly when she was away from the facility.  She stayed at this organization for only 3-4 months.  She was eventually burned out, but not from the hours or hard work.  She worked for people that wanted compliance, not commitment.  The people in charge of the budget would not approve additional staff to cover severe gaps in service, and she could not fire poor performing employees because that meant she would have to cover those holes.  Once there were not enough people to cover the functions, complaints increased, staff became frustrated, which caused more complaints, which prompted management to approach the issue as if there were a compliance problem.  This approach caused more employees to quit, which meant employee turnover increased.  The staff that resigned were those with options, the ones that stayed, were the poor performers that didn’t want to take the risk of a new job.

To focus on her employees and create an environment that showed them the organization would care for them helps foster a culture of commitment.  It starts at the top; if leaders do not engage the supervisors and managers, then the managers and supervisors will not engage the lower level employees, and problems will surface.  They mask themselves as compliance issues, but they are commitment issues.

 

Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium

Leadership Patience

Leadership patience is the ability to lead without having to drive the train on every issue.  Many leaders struggle with this.  Even the best leaders struggle with letting go and gently guiding the direction of the organization instead of moving hard and fast on the issues.  Patience is often overlooked, especially when it comes to leadership.  Don’t get me wrong, there are most certainly times when you need to move quickly and decidedly, but if you are being a good leader, these moments will be rare.  Don’t worry, leaders don’t have all the answers, many times they have very few answers, but they do know how to get the team to discover the answers.  That is leadership patience.

Far too often I see leaders making decisions before the discussion and then fail to listen once the discussion happens because they already made the decision.  It can be difficult to hold off on making a decision, and most leaders know the direction they want to go, but make a deliberate effort to know the direction you want to go and then be receptive to different ways of how to get there.

New leaders need to be very careful about having preconceived notions about the organizations they are taking over.  Deciding what to do and how to do it before you have been brought up to speed on all the nuances of the organization is a costly mistake and the recovery can take significant time.  If you want to see how your ideas will be received, you can do that without giving away your desire to implement them.  Simply ask the question and listen to the response.  You should be able to distinguish biased answers from legitimately thoughtful responses.

Simply put, people do not like change.  In many cases, they will fight change even when they know it is a good change.  I think the biggest reason for this is because it takes energy to change.  In our busy organizations, change takes energy away from important things we are already doing.  Taking that energy and using it on change creates anxiety because the new process may not even work.  This is why following a change management methodology is wise.  It helps reduce the anxiety of change and can help create an intellectual and emotional drive to change which makes the effort worthwhile.

Listen to your people.  It takes longer, you might not get the answer you want, and your forfeit perceived control, but the only way to effectively lead is my listening to the people under your charge.  Listening is difficult for everyone and is especially difficult as we get older and more experienced.  So, take the time to listen, slow the process down and be patient!  We all know you could change it and be finished in a few days, but unless you want to be stuck doing the tactical level work, you need to be patient and take the few weeks to listen and create a plan the team is willing and excited to work with.

 

Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, and Facebook!

THE MICRO-MANAGING MANAGER IN DISGUISE

April 4, 2018|

Author: Robert E. Wood “Managers in Disguise-Leaders in Disgust”

Managers in disguise are bad enough, throw some micromanaging on top, and you have something akin to Ringling Brothers for business. I can hear the circus music in my head right now. A business owner with this combination of incompetence is truly toxic and unfit to lead anyone, but here we are, day in and day out, required to stomach their sophomoric decision-making process until we find a better opportunity to be successful.

At this point, you’re probably expecting me to offer a solution to this problem and rightly so, it’s what I do right. Here we go, offer them a copy of my leadership book Managers in Disguise-Leaders in Disgust and GET OUT ASAP. How’s that for simplicity? It’s the least you can do for the teammates you’re leaving behind. You deserve better than this. Your ethics, values, self-respect, etc., etc. will slowly erode under this type of culture and oh, don’t let me forget to mention how hard a culture like this is on your family life. Studies show, eighty percent of employees who quit a bad manager, says it was the best thing they ever did and wished they had done it sooner.

There’s no leadership in organizations which are led by Managers in Disguise, there’s just chaos, misery, a high turnover rate and a lawsuit waiting to happen. The boss is the puppet master with that weird laugh, pulling your strings just to be pulling them while turning the motivated into the unmotivated just because they can. There’s no ethics or values present in this atmosphere either, that would require too much work. If you choose to stay in this toxic environment, your ethics, values, self-respect and any other trait bestowed on you by your parents or GOD will be tested. Managers in Disguise aren’t ethical; their philosophy is profits before values. Profits struggle in this environment; values being second to profits are why values in this organization don’t exist.

Do yourself a favor and really investigate your next opportunity before accepting a position. Do your homework and get some information from social media or the Better Business Bureau (BBB.) An interview should be a two-way street, ask to talk to some of their employees of your choosing. A good organization will allow you this request which shows confidence on their part. Ask about the effectiveness of their leadership and succession training programs.

A leader hires employees who can do what they can’t and then gets out of their way and lets them accomplish the goals set forth by him or her. A business owner cannot do the work of two people by themselves effectively; this is why we hire more people. A leader understands, everyone is not incompetent, and he/she is not the only one who can do the work, this is why a leader is constantly teaching and delegating, which creates more leaders and followers.

On the other hand, a micromanager’s ego says, everyone but he/she is incompetent, and he/she is the only one smart enough to perform any task properly. No one measures up to his/her standards, and therefore the micro-managing begins. The only thing we can do for the micro-manager is monetizing what they could have if they would just change their ways. Businesses which are operated by the micro-managing Manager in Disguise have been known to be profitable, but the profits realized are nothing compared to those of a business in the same market with the same opportunities but is led by a leader.

Managers in Disguise refuse to acknowledge the approximate twenty-five to thirty percent of the indirect costs associated with the dysfunction he/she perpetuates and/or is willing to put up with. Lack of leadership fosters a lack of passion, safety, creativity, productivity, respect and the list goes on and on. So for the Manager in Disguise, who by some miracle is reading this, learn to let go and trust your employees to do the work they were hired to do and hire a leader to do what you can’t. The twenty-five to thirty percent Return on Investment (ROI) should be more than enough to justify your letting go. Stepping aside is not stepping down; it’s just the right thing to do in your case. Your business will reward you for it.

MANAGER IN DISGUISE?

The Death of Fun at Work

What is it with some managers?  Why do they hate fun?  Anytime they hear about a quick basketball game, game of cards, or anything that doesn’t contribute directly to the result the employees are hired for; they freak out.  Have they forgotten where they came from?  Have they lost perspective about how mundane work can get?

Now, I’m sure many of you are thinking, “I don’t let my people waste time.”  What I say is, I believe some time spent messing around and having fun is a good use of time.  Of course, many professions do not fit in with this theory, a surgeon probably doesn’t have time to stop a play a quick game of hearts, but we all know of those work environments where it is possible.

The key to this is good leadership.  But more than just good leadership, we have to evaluate the reasons these managers see only a waste of time.  They are not concerned about morale; they are not concerned for their people’s lives; they seem only to be concerned with completing work.  But not just work getting done but being done perfectly.  These managers find it so easy to tear apart anything.  Have a problem employee take a few steps in a positive direction? Nope, they will remind you of the times they made mistakes.  Even when they do good, there are usually times when they have made mistakes and these managers will remember.

It becomes such a pain for other managers to fight against the “fun-less” managers that we do avoid the fight far more often than we would probably admit.  There is plenty of evidence to support the position that happy employees do better and more work.  And fun at work is one way to make employees happy.  Fun at work is not the priority.  High-quality performance, efficient processes, discipline, accountability are all much more important than fun at work.  But when these things are happening, when you have a good work environment, it’s time to throw the football or break out the jump rope and have fun.

Unfortunately, I have not figured out a great way to change these managers.  Most of the time, they will continue to be a negative influence on the organization’s people until they either quit or retire.  They can be great operationally and still hurt the organization because they are poor leaders.  My tactic is to be relentless with progress.  I never stop my message and consistently come up with ways to try to push them in the direction of fun.  Little by little without them even realizing, they will change.  Small steps, which are barely even perceptible, will make a huge difference over time.  Yes, this is hard, but in the end, it is worth it to your people.

Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, and Facebook!

Leadership Lessons From The Fireplace

We are all Tools!

When I was a kid growing up in Southern Utah almost everyone I knew had a fireplace or a wood burning stove of some kind. Almost without exception, sitting next to the wonderful heat producing factory was a kit of tools. In this kit contained a mini shovel, broom and what we called a poker! The shovel was used to remove the ashes from the fireplace, the broom for cleaning the around the fireplace after you inevitably spilled ash and charred wood on the floor. My favorite, the poker, was used to stoke the fire, move burning logs around so you could place additional pieces in the fire.

As managers and leaders in organizations, regardless of size, we have to always be mindful that we are leading people who have specific talents, skills, and abilities. Each of your employees is different! They have different drivers, biases, abilities, etc. and leaders need to take the time and get to know their team members. Who are the extroverts, introverts, the career driven, the content, the charismatic and the list goes on.

Talent management is vital to achieving the goals and overall mission of that organization. We are not the same and cannot all achieve the same level of performance at each task as everyone else. For instance, the shy, introverted, data analyst is not the best person to give a facility tour of your new freight distribution center to prospective clients. You have to pick a different tool for that job. If you have an underperforming branch and need a quick turn-around, who do you send? A poker! Not a broom or a shovel, you need someone to move things around, shake things up and stoke the fire. Who is your poker? When your organization suffers from loss, whether a tragic personal loss or your poker pushed the team and they still did not meet the goal, what leader do you send?

Very few companies are operating at this level of leadership and management. It requires deliberate thought and deliberate action to specific situations. We are tools. I am a specific tool for specific jobs. I know my limits and will not let personal pride hinder my team from accomplishing our goals and the overall mission of my organization. I will call in other leaders/tools to deal with specific situations when I am beyond my limits.

Be aware that some of your brooms want to be pokers and vice versa. This is dealt with during feedback and in my experience will cause conflict, which is good. If you go back to your conflict-resolution training, avoidance, in this case, is not an option. A broom can never be a poker!

The next time you see some ashes try to pick them up with the poker! You will see my point…

I’ll leave you with this;

What tools are sitting next to your fireplace?

-Do you need more options?

Are you aware of the tools you have available to deal with all the situations in your company?

Unfortunately, unlike purchasing a Fireplace Took Kit online for about $100, developing your supervisors and managers to look for the right person to attack specific concerns will not be that simple, but well worth your time to invest in.